The real lesson of the Gosnell trial

posted at 1:31 pm on April 21, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Now that the prosecution has rested in the trial of Kermit Gosnell, the defense team gets its chance to present its own case. Needless to say, after the testimony from some of those in Gosnell’s inner circle about the conditions of the clinic and of the infants killed after botched abortions, that will be a tough task indeed for Gosnell’s lawyer. One big question will be whether the jury will hear from Gosnell himself, and the Philadelphia Inquirer believes he may:

Overcoming this pile of evidence may seem insurmountable, but that is the job defense attorney Jack McMahon begins Monday. …

It is not known if Gosnell will testify. The Constitution does not require a defendant to testify or present evidence, and a jury may not consider that fact in reaching a verdict.

But given Gosnell’s past behavior, it would not be a surprise if he does.

From his first court appearance in February 2009, Gosnell has maintained an amiable, courtly demeanor that belies his precarious legal situation and the anger of some antiabortion partisans who have attended his trial.

He has rejected several plea deals from prosecutors, the last before jury selection started March 4. The offer would have let Gosnell serve life in a federal prison rather than the grittier Pennsylvania system and his wife, Pearl, 52, keep their West Philadelphia home.

“You’ll know when I know,” McMahon snapped on Thursday when Assistant District Attorney Edward Cameron asked for his list of witnesses, which he is required to file before beginning his case.

Generally speaking, it’s not a good idea to leave a vulnerable defendant open to cross-examination. In this case, though, it’s probably a toss-up as to which is worse — not having Gosnell explain himself in some manner after the avalanche of testimony in the case, or allowing the prosecution to challenge Gosnell on every photograph and every account given in testimony for an anodyne medical justification for each act. To some extent, McMahon has already tried to establish justifications on each of the deaths during cross-examination, by claiming that the children were doomed no matter whether they were breathing or not, and that the breathing and movements were “involuntary” spasms from a dying fetus, not desperate attempts of an infant to stay alive.

Another question will be whether Gosnell’s defense gets more attention than did the prosecution for much of the trial. Jonah Goldberg wonders whether the coverage will take the same character it has since the media got shamed into reporting on the case at all — as a media story rather than a murder case:

My fellow Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers wrote a USA Today column last week shaming the media for not covering the Gosnell case enough or, in many cases, at all. She got results. Suddenly everyone was talking about it. Though a dismaying amount of the coverage is about why there was a lack of coverage.

It’s an important issue, of course. But it’s not a complicated one. It seems obvious that most mainstream outlets are run and staffed by pro-choice liberals. But whatever the motivation, The Washington Post’s Melinda Henneberger is surely correct when she says the mainstream media are generally locked into a single narrative about abortion: “reproductive rights under siege.”

Ironically, the same factors that might have discouraged the mainstream media from covering the story in the first place now give them an incentive to turn it into a story about the media. CBS News, for instance, broke its broadcast boycott of the trial by running a piece on the political firestorm over the lack of coverage.

The debate over the national media silence over the trial is worth having, but is secondary to the real issue. Goldberg postulates that the media’s sudden bout of introspection is just an avoidance mechanism:

Many prominent Democratic politicians oppose any meaningful restrictions on late-term abortions. President Obama, as a state senator, fought a law that would have protected live infants accidentally delivered during an abortion. Sen. Barbara Boxer once said that constitutional rights begin when you bring the baby home from the hospital. Prosecutors almost never try to enforce violations of late-term abortion laws, in part because the Supreme Court says any abortion is constitutional if the mother’s psychological health would be endangered by continuing the pregnancy.

Regardless, Gosnell isn’t only being charged with performing illegal late-term abortions. He’s being charged with delivering viable babies and killing them. The really profound question here is what is the moral difference between killing a living baby that is outside the mother for a few seconds and killing one that’s still inside. It’s no wonder the media would rather talk about itself.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Sherman Frederick hits the nail on the head. In the end, the question is not so much about the few inches between life and disinterest in the law, but in the difference between life and utilitarianism:

If people focused on Dr. Gosnell, they would see the crazy horror of American abortion policy as codified by the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling. That ruling figuratively and literally splits babies in a vain attempt to avoid the obvious — abortion kills, whether it is in the last week or the first week of pregnancy. You can call it a fetus or, as the court said, “potential life.” But no matter what euphemisms we might use to soothe our conscience, simple science and staggering medical advances over the past 40 years render it all vanity. …

The grand jury report also notes that Dr. Gosnell kept in his office 20 to 30 jars filled with the feet of the aborted. That Mengele-esque detail aside, Dr. Gosnell’s story should spark questions about the difference between a 25-week-old “baby” and a 24-week-old “fetus.”

Medically, the answer is nothing, and the intellectually honest know it.

The argument for abortion in the new millennium has become the argument for politically correct infanticide. Not the “bad” kind of infanticide that selects for gender or against ethnicity, but the “good” kind of American infanticide that selects against the young for the sole convenience of the old.

That’s the inconvenient truth. Pay no attention to those jars filled with baby feet.

McMahon will spend the next several weeks trying to sell utilitarianism to the jury. Let’s see if the media spends the next several weeks trying to sell utilitarianism to the nation.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I fully anticipate the LSM will hang on every defense assertion, with an attitude of, “See! This is all overblown, sensationalized, and just a stunt by the anti-choice crowd when we have more important things to worry about.”

The really profound question here is what is the moral difference between killing a living baby that is outside the mother for a few seconds and killing one that’s still inside. It’s no wonder the media would rather talk about itself.

It is no longer possible for a right thinking person to defend the practice of abortion or euthanasia, the irrefutable science of today disqualifies all the old arguments. Three basic principles derived from philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle teach us, #1) that the more data used the more accurate the results, #2) there can only be one correct result of that data, and, #3) results become facts only when they can be substantiated, todays science only serves to reinforce those conclusions.
John Locke identified three unalienable rights, Life, Liberty and Private Property only to have Private Property replaced with the Pursuit of Happiness. The Dred Scott vs. Sandford case ruled the Government had no control to regulate slavery, Roe vs. Wade ruled the womans right to privacy trumped the rights of her child. If the courts practiced the Golden Rule, the Silver Rule, the Principles of Objective Truths and Objective Ethics then they would have to come to the conclusion that even the single cell Zygote has all the potential for DNA sequencing of a complete human being and should be awarded the full protections of every other human being. Modern science can not hide under the cloak of ignorance or the mantle of Subjective Truth when the undeniable Objective Truth is readily available. It is past time for this 40 years of infanticide to be ended.

McMahon played the race card in his opening. He said Gosnell was prosecuted because he was black and serving an “under-served” poor minority community.

Of course, Gosnell passed on STD’s and hepatitis to those poor patients because of his unconcern for basic hygiene of the facilities and the instruments, and also aborted a lot of minority babies in filthy rooms while giving the white women from the suburbs cleaner facilities.

The prosecution will get rebuttal. Perhaps he can show pictures of little black feet in jars.

To some extent, McMahon has already tried to establish justifications on each of the deaths during cross-examination, by claiming that the children were doomed no matter whether they were breathing or not, and that the breathing and movements were “involuntary” spasms from a dying fetus, not desperate attempts of an infant to stay alive.

Of course, only a live person can be “dying,” which means the babies were alive and should have been immediately sent to a hospital.

And if he was “ensuring demise,” then there were doubts that the fetus was actually dead, so the law required him to assume it to be live and take all necessary steps to preserve that life.

I fully anticipate the LSM will hang on every defense assertion, with an attitude of, “See! This is all overblown, sensationalized, and just a stunt by the anti-choice crowd when we have more important things to worry about.”

And why are there still crickets from the supposedly pro-life Republicans?

There should be dozens of pieces of legislation being debated that would give greater oversight to abortion mills.

If as the saying goes, liberals want abortion “safe and legal” – the rare having dropped out at some point – let’s spare no expense in making sure it is “safe”. As a prominent pol once said, if it saves only one life…

That ruling figuratively and literally splits babies in a vain attempt to avoid the obvious — abortion kills, whether it is in the last week or the first week of pregnancy. You can call it a fetus or, as the court said, “potential life.”

Hey, we’re all “potential life”. Being alive tomorrow isn’t guaranteed by anyone, and for all of us that tomorrow won’t be there someday. But we punish people when one human deliberately takes away the possibility of tomorrow from someone else, and their saying that they might have died tomorrow anyway is no defense. Everybody deserves that chance to make it to tomorrow. Unless you’re an unborn fetus or one born through a “botched abortion”, that is.

And, besides, we can’t offend those oh-so-dainty “liberal” sensibilities by showing them the product of their sacrament, can we?

Liberalism deals in abstractions and theory, and this is as true in abortion as any other issue.

A baby is a fetus, if not wanted, up until after delivery, and a baby if wanted from the get go. That the wanting aspect has no relation to the personhood of the victim should be obvious to those who are actually concerned with reality.

by claiming that the children were doomed no matter whether they were breathing or not, and that the breathing and movements were “involuntary” spasms from a dying fetus, not desperate attempts of an infant to stay alive

If nothing else, their client base would be expanded by millions were it not for Roe v. Wade.

True, but the likes of Rev Al would jeopardize their money stream if they made the left choose between them and the feminists…

As an aside, it is interesting that every white liberal I’ve talked to privately about abortion (without them knowing I am a conservative) has eventually admitted that one of the “benefits” of abortion is “reducing the number of darker hued people who society needs fewer of any way…”

Medically, the answer is nothing, and the intellectually honest know it.

The argument for abortion in the new millennium has become the argument for politically correct infanticide. Not the “bad” kind of infanticide that selects for gender or against ethnicity, but the “good” kind of American infanticide that selects against the young for the sole convenience of the old.

Infanticide in this day is “good” in America but “bad” in India and China. All 3 are government sponsored and blessed in America, by Obama too.

I fail to see why the civil rights industry isn’t all over this. Abortion is lopsidedly a massacre of black infants.

If nothing else, their client base would be expanded by millions were it not for Roe v. Wade.

S. Weasel on April 21, 2013 at 1:57 PM

IIRC, one of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s daughters is a pro-life, Christian minister who has been trying to get the black community for years to pay attention to how many of their children are being killed.

Despite her credentials, she doesn’t get much traction, because the NAACP and Congressional Dems are still solidly part of the Dem set of factions that includes the feminists.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Sherman Frederick hits the nail on the head. In the end, the question is not so much about the few inches between life and disinterest in the law, but in the difference between life and utilitarianism

Bingo.

The problem with utilitarianism is it simply recognizes preferences, but it doesn’t recognize rights or innate human dignity.

Awhile ago I was watching something about The Holocaust, specifically how the people of Weimar, Germany were forced to visit the Buchenwald Concentration Camp, located near their town. There are videos of the Germans. While on their way to the camp they seem relaxed and smiling. Some seemed to regard it as a bit of an outing, even though they were obliged by the Americans to go. Their demeanour changed once inside the camp as they were shown the bodies piled up, the gas chambers, the crematoria (crematoriums?) and the condition of the remaining survivors. Even in black and white, they seemed pale. They were clearly shaken and many were crying.

Growing up, there has always been this question as to whether the Germans knew what was happening. If you read the new book Soldaten you will be left to conclude that maybe they did. On the other hand, looking at the faces of the people of Weimar on the way to the camp, they seemed not apprehensive in the least. So we are left with questions of knowing but not “knowing” …willful blindness etc.

The Gosnell case makes me think about this in many ways. One aspect that seems relevant is the ability of the German state to keep secret the Holocaust that it was committing. The German state at the time was a totalitarian dictatorship which controlled all communication media within. So, they could, to an extent, suppress news about the Holocaust.

The news, and reality, of today’s Holocaust, abortion, seems to be suppressed as well, but now this suppression is done so willingly. It is suppressed by a media which for all the reasons you and others have discussed over the past few weeks does not want it discussed. Fundamentally, there is a fear that what really happens in an abortion will come out. They do not want to raise issues of life and death, and humanity of the unborn. Once those issues come up the genie is out of the bottle. The media collectively have the ability to suppress (I insist on using the word “suppress” because that is a truthful and accurate description of what is happening) this reality from coming out and so the public is left with the ability to say that it does not know what is really happening with abortion. In this they sound a lot like the German people after being told about the Holocaust.

The media is, in its way, equally as ruthless as the German state with dissenters. Germany would cart dissenters off to prison or to be hanged. In our society the media seeks to ostracize this who dissent from the abortion orthodoxy by intimidation, ridicule and compartmentalizing them with others they deem unsavoury…for example the Tea Party. It is not execution but it is removal from the public forum. The only way back is to switch sides…so we see many formerly pro-life politicians change sides.

This is why groups such as Show the Truth appeared…it was the only way to bypass the media clampdown. Of course their media treatment was brutal as well.

Your question about whether the media will cover the Gosnell defence is interesting. Of course it gives them a chance to publicize that side of the case without having really shown the prosecution side. Yet I have my doubts that they will cover him because, to do so, it would require showing what it is he has had to defend himself against. If they do cover the defence, it will be with great delicacy…not to protect our sensibilities, but to avoid raising any real issue about abortion…late term or otherwise.

There should be dozens of pieces of legislation being debated that would give greater oversight to abortion mills.
18-1 on April 21, 2013 at 1:56 PM

More regulation and “oversight” is not a conservative position. Conservatives should, instead of calling for more laws, be asking themselves why a guy like Gosnell had a virtual monopoly on late-term abortions in such a huge city in the first place. Nobody would have ever gone to his filthy clinic–literally, no one at all–if they had better places to choose from. He would have gone out of business decades ago.

Is Gosnell like the guy in the monty python-Holy Grail movie where he’s throwing bodies on the cart and saying “this ones dead!” and the baby says “No I’m not” and then he says “well, he’s mostly dead!” I know that’s dark/semi-inappropriate humor, but it’s essentially a parody of what Gosnell had going on in Philly.

Almost forgotten is the other person on trial with Gosnell: Eileen O’Neill, 56, of Phoenixville, an unlicensed medical school graduate who worked in the family-practice section of Gosnell’s clinic.

O’Neill is accused of conspiring in the operation of a “corrupt organization.”

O’Neill’s defense began Thursday when attorney James Berardinelli was allowed to call a first witness out of turn.

Natalie Tursi, a friend of O’Neill and her brother, testified that O’Neill went to work for Gosnell, part time at $400 a month, because Gosnell promised to help her with the medical license.

“Eileen was very intelligent, but she was not very street-smart,” Tursi said. “She didn’t have commonsense smarts.” -Philly.com

From the grand jury report:

Eileen O’Neill testified that she graduated in 1995 from a medical school in Texas. She described an odd course of residency in which she seemingly worked simultaneously in Texas and at a Louisiana abortion clinic and then spent a month at Gosnell’s clinic, where she said she “just stood around and did nothing pretty much.”

Louisiana Board of Medicine records show that O’Neill was licensed to practice medicine in Louisiana from 1996 to 2000 (she testified, incorrectly, that she was licensed from 1995 to 1998). She testified that she worked at the Delta abortion clinic in Baton Rouge from 1998 to 2000, even though she also testified that she moved to Texas in 1998. She said that she worked at the Louisiana abortion clinic as a “side job.”

During that same time period, in 1998 or 1999, she said she was licensed to practice in Texas, but obtained “special dispensation” to finish her residency at Reading Hospital in Pennsylvania. She spent one month of her residency at Gosnell’s clinic. O’Neill briefly held a “graduate medical training license” in Pennsylvania, but let it expire in 2001. After her residency stints, she never held a medical license in Pennsylvania. (She asserted that she has a license application pending now.)

O’Neill relinquished her Louisiana medical license in 2000 – she claimed because of “post traumatic stress syndrome” – and has not been licensed to practice medicine in any capacity since 2001. Despite being fully aware that she was not licensed, Gosnell hired her to work at his clinic in 2002.

This is amazing. She’ll get shredded on cross, too. Should have taken a plea.

More regulation and “oversight” is not a conservative position. Conservatives should, instead of calling for more laws, be asking themselves why a guy like Gosnell had a virtual monopoly on late-term abortions in such a huge city in the first place. Nobody would have ever gone to his filthy clinic–literally, no one at all–if they had better places to choose from. He would have gone out of business decades ago.

Armin Tamzarian on April 21, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Democrats LOOOOVE regulation. This is the ONLY area they don’t regulate because of the political ramifications. Democrats have to ask themselves why years of sex ed and contraption on every corner still requires adult women to get abortions..

It’s an important issue, of course. But it’s not a complicated one. It seems obvious that most mainstream outlets are run and staffed by pro-choice liberals PRO-ABORTION LEFTISTS.

These slime aren’t “pro-choice” and they aren’t “liberal”.

But whatever the motivation, The Washington Post’s Melinda Henneberger is surely correct when she says the mainstream media are generally locked into a single narrative about abortion: “reproductive rights under siege.”

That’s almost funny. Abortion is about the exact opposite of “reproductive rights”. Just take a look at the forced abortions in China and their one-child policy. That is an example of “reproductive rights” being trampled, via abortion, of course.

It really is well past time that we take the language back from the leftists, who do nothing but pervert it until there is no meaning left, at all, and we all are reduced to nothing but vacuous grunts just as the left is ensconced in for their entire, pathetic, destructive lives. Language has meaning and cannot be allowed to be stripped of it just on the whim of a bunch of insane nihilists with serious personality problems.

More regulation and “oversight” is not a conservative position. Conservatives should, instead of calling for more laws, be asking themselves why a guy like Gosnell had a virtual monopoly on late-term abortions in such a huge city in the first place. Nobody would have ever gone to his filthy clinic–literally, no one at all–if they had better places to choose from. He would have gone out of business decades ago.

Armin Tamzarian on April 21, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Because we need clean, antiseptic places for infanticide.

Hey moron, this is a capital murder trial. That should be a hint that this isn’t even about early term abortion. Abortion is legal, but infanticide is murder.

Actually, regulations are the specific implementations of the law, which are often written in general terms. The legislation delegates to an administrative agency the authority to write regs. Regs can often be more quickly changed than a law, which would have to go through a legislative process.

Several states are passing laws requiring abortion clinics to be inspected as other medical clinics, to have doorways and stairs wide enough for EMTs to get through with a gurney (one problem with the woman who died was that the EMTs couldn’t get the stretcher up the narrow stairs of a rowhouse building to get her out in time.)

Actually conservative have started regulated abortion clinics in other states. In Mississippi, they passed a law that the physician that perform abortion in MS be state licensed in MS, and have admitting privileges to the local hospital. The left and the abortion lobby cried foul and said those regulations were too onerous and that MS was trying to shut down the clinic.

Seriously, I would think ANY doctor in the area performing surgery should have admitting privileges to the local hospitals in case of emergencies. Common sense 101, but not to the pro-choice brigade which could care less about women..

It appears that this man lasted so long specifically because he didn’t follow rules and regulations. The fact that he charged more and didn’t follow basic sanitary conditions for a bathroom, let alone a “medical” facility is just more rules to ignore. I can only speak for myself but I think our biggest problem in this country is not the need for more laws, rules and regulations but the fact that no one plans to enforce them. That might actually equate to a real jobs program.

Armin isn’t saying that Gosnell shouldn’t have done what he did to the babies. Armin is saying that Gosnell should have provided a “clean enviroment” in which to snip babies necks…

melle1228 on April 21, 2013 at 2:24 PM

I’m saying it’s appalling that he was literally the only game in town for women who wanted late-term abortions. He ran a de facto monopoly and provided exactly the kind of services you get under a monopoly. He cut every corner possible, hired unqualified employees to work for him, and gave no thought to the conditions of his operation because his customers had nowhere else to go. That should resonate much more strongly with people who believe in the free market than individual stories about whatever nasty things he did in the course of enjoying an absolute, unquestioned monopoly. He would have gone out of business long, long ago (or significantly cleaned up his act) if he had to compete with other providers of late-term abortions. Period.

First off, in Pennsylvania the cut off for abortion I believe is 24 weeks. So there was “no game in town” because it was ILLEGAL. Second, there is usually few physicians that do abortions, because most find the practice abhorrent and against what they went into the medical field to do.

I haven’t been following the case; too grisly and depressing for me. I thought that the the primary charges Gosnell is facing stem from normal deliveries of babies that were murdered after being delivered. Am I wrong in that understanding?

I haven’t been following the case; too grisly and depressing for me. I thought that the the primary charges Gosnell is facing stem from normal deliveries of babies that were murdered after being delivered. Am I wrong in that understanding?

If so, then they weren’t “botched” abortions.

Dusty on April 21, 2013 at 2:35 PM

No, although botched abortions are not that rare. Pennsylvania law states that you cannot abort over what they consider viability-24 weeks. Gosnell was fudging the records and making every pregnancy under 24 weeks. The ones he actually got caught for he is getting charged with murder because yes he delivered and then killed them. He has an almost four decade history of negligence and malpractice – perforated uteruses, patients bleeding out, refusal to call ambulance etc. This man was dangerous and authorities knew it and did nothing.

First off, in Pennsylvania the cut off for abortion I believe is 24 weeks. So there was “no game in town” because it was ILLEGAL. Second, there is usually few physicians that do abortions, because most find the practice abhorrent and against what they went into the medical field to do.

melle1228 on April 21, 2013 at 2:33 PM

You’re proving my point for me. Why should there be an arbitrary cut-off of 24 weeks? Does that number make any sense at all? People who truly believe that life begins at conception should be the least in favor of arbitrarily banning abortion at some specific point of the pregnancy. It’s not as if the fetus is any more human after 24 weeks.

And if there are fewer physicians willing to do abortions (particularly of the late-term kind), it’s in major part because they don’t want to deal with the harassment (or worse) from deranged “pro-lifers” like that maniac that shot a late-term abortion doctor in Kansas a few years ago.

Unfortunately the people who believe that life begins at conception don’t make the rules. I believe the 24 week benchmark is suppose to indicate viability whereas liberals think that anything from conception to college send off is fair game.

If the past 50 years have taught us anything, it is that honesty – intellectual or otherwise – and the political Left are mutually exclusive. Communists, Democrats, Fascists, Liberals, Marxists, Progressives, and Socialists, (different names for the same ideology) deny absolute truth, therefore there is nothing about which to be “intellectually honest”.

It isn’t just that abortion is about killing. Eating meat is also about killing. For that matter eating plants or making a wood table is about killing. It seems to me that all these kinds of killings are acceptable.

It isn’t just that abortion is about killing. Eating meat is also about killing. For that matter eating plants or making a wood table is about killing. It seems to me that all these kinds of killings are acceptable.

thuja on April 21, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Get back to us when cattle and plants are found out to actually be human beings. Otherwise you fail miserably at moral equivalency.

A chicken in every pot; a car in every garage; and an abortion clinic mill on on every street corner?

Yeah. We got your point.

Liam on April 21, 2013 at 2:41 PM

If there was a “mill” on every street corner, how long do you think someone like Gosnell would last? How often do you hear stories of Starbucks or McDonalds restaurants having blood and sh*t everywhere? Never, because they have to compete on the free market with other coffee and burger shops.

I can only speak for myself but I think our biggest problem in this country is not the need for more laws, rules and regulations but the fact that no one plans to enforce them. That might actually equate to a real jobs program.

Cindy Munford on April 21, 2013 at 2:30 PM

I bet you speak for the majority of us, anyhow I could not agree more.

But in your world this a good thing. It means you can mock conservatives, and the GOP will go down a path that will lose elections in 2014 and 2016. To me, all this talk about Gosnell is a catastrophe of the highest order. I want working free enterprise economy and a realistic foreign policy.

It isn’t just that abortion is about killing. Eating meat is also about killing. For that matter eating plants or making a wood table is about killing. It seems to me that all these kinds of killings are acceptable.

thuja on April 21, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Cannibals agree with you. So you have that going for you, which is nice.

It isn’t just that abortion is about killing. Eating meat is also about killing. For that matter eating plants or making a wood table is about killing. It seems to me that all these kinds of killings are acceptable.

thuja on April 21, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Knowing you – I bet animals are in your dating pool.

You’re another ill freak that is very limited in their ability to post on a multitude of subjects. Don’t worry we won’t take away your right to smoke c8ck.

I can only speak for myself but I think our biggest problem in this country is not the need for more laws, rules and regulations but the fact that no one plans to enforce them. That might actually equate to a real jobs program.

Cindy Munford on April 21, 2013 at 2:30 PM

I bet you speak for the majority of us, anyhow I could not agree more.

Everything in nature has their natural predators. Do we kill the animals that eat the grass? It’s all about survival and abortion has zero to do with survival.

Cindy Munford on April 21, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Rabbits naturally abort their fetuses when the food supply is short. So abortion does survival value. If abortion was so unnatural, it’s hard to explain the high infanticide rates during pre-historic times. Let’s be thank for abortion in that we don’t have to resort to old school infanticide.

It isn’t just that abortion is about killing. Eating meat is also about killing. For that matter eating plants or making a wood table is about killing. It seems to me that all these kinds of killings are acceptable.

thuja on April 21, 2013 at 2:44 PM

So we should get rid of all murder laws because we eat meat or something.. Moral equivalent fail BTW..

It isn’t just that abortion is about killing. Eating meat is also about killing. For that matter eating plants or making a wood table is about killing. It seems to me that all these kinds of killings are acceptable.

thuja on April 21, 2013 at 2:44 PM

So we should get rid of all murder laws because we eat meat or something.. Moral equivalent fail BTW..

melle1228 on April 21, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Thuja has some weird fascination with killing the unborn. When they find that Gay gene…he will wake up.